2014Da72234 Compensation for damages

A person shall be appointed.

1.Korea Internet and Security Agency

2. Scom Telecom Inc.

3. El branchus Co., Ltd.;

Seoul Central District Court Decision 201445523 Decided September 2, 2014

February 21, 2017

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The instant case constitutes small claims as provided in Article 2(1) of the Trial of Small Claims Act and Article 1-2 of the former Rules on Trial of Small Claims (amended by Supreme Court Rules No. 2694, Nov. 29, 2016). Therefore, the final appeal that can be filed with the Supreme Court is limited to cases where the lower court has a reason prescribed in Article 3 of the said Act, barring special circumstances.

1. According to Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act as to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Korea Internet and Security Agency, an appeal may be filed only against the judgment of the Supreme Court (Article 1(1)2) when it is unreasonable to determine whether or not the law, order, rule, or disposition has been violated and whether or not the law has been violated or not with respect to small claims.

First of all, the grounds for appeal under Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Trial of Small Claims Act refer to the cases where an order, rule or disposition, which has the nature of a statute, is applied to the relevant case or its objection, even if it is in violation of the Constitution or a law. Therefore, the term "disposition" refers to a disposition, not an administrative agency's specific and single disposition, but a disposition having the legal effect (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84431, Dec. 10, 2009, etc.).

The lower court determined that an emergency measure (hereinafter “emergency measure”) under Article 49-2(3)3 of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 14080, Mar. 22, 2016; hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”) committed by Defendant Internet and Security Agency infringed on the essential part of the Plaintiff’s freedom of expression, and did not determine whether Article 49-2(3)3 of the Information and Communications Network Act violated the Constitution. Since it is apparent that the emergency measure of this case is not “disposition having a legal effect that serves as the premise of a specific disposition”, the lower court does not include the determination on the violation of the Constitution of Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Trial of Small Claims Act and the determination on the violation of the Constitution and the law.

In addition, "when the Supreme Court makes a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents" under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act refers to the case where the Supreme Court makes an interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court's decision as to the interpretation of the statutes applicable to a specific case, and the reasons such as simple misunderstanding of legal principles are not applicable to this case." In addition, "the Supreme Court's decision as to the interpretation of the statutes applicable to a specific case" refers to the case where the Supreme Court makes a defined interpretation as to the whole or part of the provisions applicable to a specific case, and "the case where the Supreme Court makes conflicting interpretations" refers to the case where the Supreme Court makes a decision as to the application of the provisions of the relevant case under the premise of the interpretation opposite to or opposing the justice interpretation of the provisions of the Supreme Court as to the relevant statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da6979

However, examining the reasoning of the judgment below, since the court below cannot be viewed as a interpretation contrary to the definition of the Supreme Court decision or a premise of the opposite interpretation as to the interpretation of the law applicable to this case, it does not constitute "when the court below made a decision contrary to the Supreme Court decision."

Ultimately, the above defendant's ground of appeal does not fall under any of the grounds of appeal provided for in Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Stebel Co., Ltd. and Lbane Co., Ltd., the grounds of appeal alleged in the grounds of appeal are merely erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by violating the rules of evidence against the judgment below, and thus, it does not constitute a legitimate grounds of appeal under Article 3 of the above Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Cho Jong-hee